Gotcha. Just seems odd this article declares him a winner with marginally more than 50% in.

Yeah, that's far less than I expected in terms of disparity. With that many votes to come, is it at all likely he wont win?

Look, throwing out a bunch of quantum physics references and going off on his own theories with a ton of paragraphs is not a good argument. — Philosophim

This is exactly the type of non-engagement I am seeing throughout the exchange. I don't know nearly enough to know whcih side is closer to 'correct' or whatever the actual case is - I'm just saying how it appears to someone in that position. I would suggest that your 'Baffle Them....' assertion is likely unconscious projection.

I have had to accept (with Banno, particularly) that I just dont get it, despite being convinced at every stage that Banno is not reading or paying attention, at least. I think the humility to accept that someone in that kind of position is probably on to something is reasonably helpful. I am merely trying to let you know it appears the same is happening here. The actual arguments aren't - that - relevant. I don't see you addressing them.

I did say that. But that wasn't addressing the bulk of what he's talking about because I wouldn't know whether you were both right. It was a very specific point I addressed there. I am only speaking about your conduct, not your arguments. I simply do not see you addressing hte objections. You might be 100% on the right side of hte issue.

I may need a hand - I'll have a muck around this evening (its 3pm rn) and get back with whether I need your help :) I do already have Discord/an account so hopefully wont be awfully hard.

I agree they do.
Then, they both(Bob and the dumb kids) know what a butterfly is, and the other pieces of information (in one case, it's appearance, in the other, its origin) don't seem to bear on the respective knowledge claims. It doesn't seem to follow that the opposite (in each case) is required to bring the information to the level of 'knowledge'.

I don't think that's a counter as much as a parallel. They both know what a butterfly is under different criteria.

Could it be that more accurately, Bob knows merely that a butterfly comes from a cocoon? This seems to go the President example pretty squarely - I'm of the view that we can know Bob will become President, regardless of whether we know what a President is.

Fwiw, I agree entirely with Christoffer. Do what you will with the information, but it seems patently clear you are not engaging with the objections and instead just rejecting that the person objecting understands you.

I think it would be entirely appropriate for Christoffer to stop engaging.

is for people who go outside. — Lionino

I assume this is aimed his having never been outside being required to not know what a Butterfly appears to be. Fair.

the thing that comes out of the cocoon, so he knows what a butterfly is for him, just not what a butterfly is — Lionino

Even for those people, the butterfly is the thing that comes out of the cocoon. It's appearance is further information than what the thing is, surely? He has, lets say, limited knowledge.

You know that it was a non-triangle, hence your conclusion. — Lionino

Yes, this is merely a reverse of the Butterfly example to try to ensure the logic is consistent (in the sense that knowledge can be derived from aspects of a thing - but that direct knowledge isn't needed. So Bob's knowledge of the A-Cocoon-B flow ensures that once he's told that B is a Butterful, it's knowledge.

ou use an argument about people not understanding you as your go-to defense against other's critique. — Christoffer

If you ever see me doing this, please be hard on me. Thanks

My position here (though, fresh, and likely to change) is that it really, truly, does not matter.
If he has a good notion of cocoon function (in it's most simple i.e Form A->Cocoon->Form B), and that the result is called, by tradition (or perhaps he knows the etymology, but not to what it refers), a butterfly, I don't think he needs to know what a butterfly IS. He need only know that the inevitable result of a caterpillar (which he does know about) entering a cocoon (and not dying) is "a butterfly".

I see the problem. But I don't think it's more than an epistemological discomfort. He' still justified in believing "a butterfly" will result, just doesn't know what it looks like.

Additionally, if someone where to simply tell me "I drew a triangle, but it doesn't have three internal angles" I am justified, despite having zero knowledge of what they drew in reality, of knowing that it isn't a triangle. I can be absolutely certain that a Triangle has not resulted from this drawing session, but i have no idea what the person drew (this one is messy and i expect it to be pulled apart.. go for it)

“we can determine the concept of a triangle from particular triangles, but how do we know, first and foremost, what a triangle is?”: well, the former is what determines the latter. — Bob Ross

Might be way late on this, but as noted in the other thread, practice! Hoping it makes per....sort of good. LOL.

We know what a triangle is because its conditions are contained in its concept. The concept itself determines what particulars are susceptible to come under that concept. We can't do that with 'good'. There is no a priori conception. It must be derived from particulars.. Imo.

What subjectvists do not understand is this short and simple: If morality were subjective all stability as 'good' is not something you can put forth or depend on. — Chet Hawkins

What? Subjectivists have no obstacle to relying on their conception of 'the good' and I, personally, am convinced this is what Bob is doing. Establishing a subjective measure for 'good' which has objective parameters.

I don't think 'the good' could possibly be objective. Even your 'version' is just your version. That's it. It has objective parameters, but choosing the basis for what those parameters capture is subjective as anything. Calling it objective relies on telling every other person in teh world that their conception is wrong, if it isn't perfectly aligned (ironically) with yours. It appears to, funnily enough, be doing the exact same heavy lifting Bob's is, but with a more 'This is Inarguable' flavour.

For the first response, my clarification was more in the opposite direction. One must know what a President is in order to know that Bob will become one/it. Meaning, knowledge of 'President' must come, in time, prior to being told Bob will become one/it for that to be considered knowledge of same.
It's possible your response still closes that out, I'm just unsure as I wouldn't want to assume where you are putting your defenders in.

On the second, fair enough. I guess what im getting at is that I do not think that is the case, whether a mere example or the essence of hte issue (though, i think id est is a bit out of place in that exact position of your repsonse).

I dont think one needs to know what a President is before being told Bob will become one/it to know that Bob will become one/it.

This could also be pointless - but i need practice for my upcoming papers LOL

Then i may be missing something. My understanding is that the conflict in the above exchange is that you are asserting a temporality requirement to the knowledge that Bob will become President, relevant to the order in which knowledge of what President is, and subsequently, that Bob will become one/it, is received. I.e that one must know what a President is, in order to justify the knowledge that Bob will become one/It - that the former piece of information must be presupplied before the assertion of the former could be considered knowledge.

I don't think that's the case. If that's not what the conflict above is about, ignore me haha

LOL, Oh, i see. As you were..

The Dems were not (which is the comparison).

I'm unsure this is the time to enact Godwin's Law

lawful power to defraud the country — praxis

This is oxymoronic. I also disagree it seemed as if he was responding to J6.

What laws were broken in this coup you mention?

I'm not sure any laws were broken. — NOS4A2

You asked a question and he answered it with surprising directness.

I appreciate your sentiment to me, and I feel the same.

It's just that i'm sure you're capable of not devolving into pissing matches. It may well be the case that Tim is ideologically blinded, and is being disingenuous and wasting your time. I'm addressing hte general vibe and cordiality. I know this is a political discussion so a wide berth is given. This is just a personal appeal.

I should just ignore him. — Benkei

If that's what's needed, that might be the go.

@Benkei

Just a note - from a third party - you are both now not talking about anything but that you are having negative emotional reactions to each other. I would suggest perhaps either resetting to a position in whcih you can both speak about where you are disagreeing, instead of yelling at each other, or agreeing to part ways without such intense personal negativity.

I hope not to see fall-outs like this on a forum like this. I'm sure the basic notion we all hold is trying to avoid needless suffering. I may be hte wrong person to be making this call given my commitment to relativism, but that aside, I am well-aware of the practical need for shared values and language.

Could we return to somethign resembling a discussion instead of a primal argument? If this seems a bit high-falutin' i'm sorry. I just don't like seeing people losing humanity over an already-immeasurable loss of humanity :\

I get the feeling that all of these thinkers did not take much time to avoid being depressed, which can be done.

I am unsure I can take seriously a set of thinkers who are preoccupied with exploring the depths of their negative emotions. I think there is definitely something to the 'dark night of the soul' concept, and that this can, at least post-hoc, make some rather dismal experiences a little more light-ful or at least practically helpful (in highsight). But the feelings i take to be despair and hopelessness are things that you do to yourself, not immediate responses to events in your life. In that sense, I just think they're pointless mental wanking really.

I do not think that dwelling on the nature of these things can lead anywhere but further into them - which seems a pretty stupid thing to strive for, imo.

I need to know the former before the latter. — Bob Ross

Not sure that's true. You can have direct knowledge that Bob will become President (for instance, if you're told he's going to be by a source trustworthy). You might then want to ask what a President is, and have that explained to you - I imagine, barring some mental incapacity, you will pretty automatically fill in the blanks of the original statement (i.e what 'President' means) and have a full understanding of what 'Bob is going to be President' really presents you with.

I may be missing something from further back in the exchange btu this seems a solution to the temporality problem in this case.

Wild.

I have to genuinely admire your obstinance in the face of overwhelmingly unfavourable reception. I suppose that's informed by my knowledge that you're talking shite, but hey. I genuinely, not a word of sarcasm, respect your determination.

This is more or less where I sit, fwiw. I can't possibly know what numbers are accurate, but it seems pretty wild to think that it's just not happening something like how it's reported from either side.

So then we have something which has no prior explanation for its existence? A first cause? Again, I appreciate your agreement. — Philosophim

I think what he thinks you're not getting is that the thing itself is not 'uncaused' anymore than an object which exists in a world without gravity is 'ungravitised' or whatever.

It came to be in a scenario where 'cause' was a not a factor. Only since it's inception is cause a factor - so to refer to it as a 'first cause' is erroneous. Its just the first thing - which enables a second thing, but doesn't cause it.

But I see (removing the snark, hehe) what you're getting it. It necessarily follows that it would be the first thing to cause anything. I think they can both be right.

Ah - well, that's fair enough. I'll try to be more precise in future.

I'm unsure it wise to end this exchange with a school-yard misrepresentation. But you do you, Boo :kiss: I'm sure outside of this thread we'll have great conversations.

To some degree, yes. They did. And they were wrong.

A milquetoast 'standing up' and being immediately sat down by the presider with some force (that presider, was Joe Biden) is not, in any way conceivable the same in kind as an attack on the Capitol.

The reason — Beverley

Sure, i more-or-less understand how the equation works, but your explanation betrays your initial position. I'm unsure how to take that.. Mass and energy can be considered equal, but that's largely because of the below considerations...

We can understand how the amount of mass, or matter, in the universe is very small compared to the amount of energy when we consider that there are vast areas of space which are virtual vacuums, hence, why we call it 'space', whereas in just one star, enormous amounts of energy are converted. Stars are one example of where mass/matter is converted into energy btw (through the process of nuclear fusion.) — Beverley

As best i can tell, all this speaks to is the distribution of energy, Matter is, from what I understand, just really dense energy. This is why an atom bomb works (i think you mentioned similar)

Mass and energy are basically the same thing, just at different states. — Beverley

I agree with this, as above, but you've been more precise and I thank you for that!!

Hopefully this makes more sense now???? — Beverley

Certainly does. But I can't see how it relates to experiencing the total Universe. I see you parsing out different aspects of hte Universe which we can conceptualise and understand through certain observations.

I can't 'experience' the USA. I could 'experience' The Vatican. I can understand, and hold in my mind, its total limits, as it appears to me empirically. It's a boring thing to point out, i'd say, but I don't see how one can experience the Universe anymore than they can experience 'all possible pain'. It includes things you aren't able to experience (the pain of others - and that problem exists in both the 'possible pain' and 'the universe' scenarios).

filled it with your own assumptions — NOS4A2

Cool thing is, I didn't. And it's right there as proof positive that you've just lied.

I was only hoping — NOS4A2

that i was an absolute moron. I know. You were wrong.

Do you think the Israeli numbers are credible? I would hazard neither can be trusted. But I also find it extremely hard to think the numbers aren't at least in that neighbourhood given the disparity in both technology and funding.

Did you not say this? “Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.” — NOS4A2

It was what's called a proposition, within a syllogism. I'm unsure you're really understanding what's going on here.

Is this a full direct quote? — NOS4A2

No. The direct full quote is. You cannot possibly be this stupid.

You quoted him at a point of your choosing, filling in the rest with words of your own choosing. I can quote you again if you’d like. — NOS4A2

I can do you one better - I quoted him. Which, you know, anyone who can read (you) can see. This is how i know you're lying. Nothing i can do with it, but point htis out as it happens.

So I’m just curious why you feel the need to pick and choose what parts of the quote you want and supply your own words to the rest? Logic and sense? — NOS4A2

I've quoted them in full. You are out-right lying. The kind of lying I cannot do anything with but tell you you are lying. Because you can read. So you know you are lying.

So why make such sweeping alterations, and pretend he said one and not the other? — NOS4A2

I've not. I literally quoted him. Directly. No interpolation whatsoever. You are lying. And you know you are lying.

His words explicitly and directly say something else than what you’ve consistently claimed it does, — NOS4A2

They don't. I quoted him, so I know they don't. You are lying. Told you you wouldn't have any fun.

The only possible point you could conceivably make that doesn't require you lying, is that you think 'allow' and 'justify' in this context are somehow materially different, in that they indicate different attitudes or intentions about the objects in question (the rules, articles etc.. of the Constitution).

How you could possibly think that is, I think, not something a sane person could understand.

Interesting. No matter the destination, i tend to want road trips to last longer. It almost feels like a time-out-of-time when im road trippin'.

Ok, that's a bit different from your previous take LOL.

Hmm, yeah Memento is good, but it was essentially nicked, and improved by a French film called Irreversible by Gaspar Noe.

I think Nolan's films are great - they're Hollywood, but Hollywood for less-stupid people haha. To be honest, though, the only one of his films that i think is an objectively 'good' film in the sense of coherence, style, dimension, dynamics, acting, cinematography etc.. is Interstellar. The rest have their moments of stupidity (excepting Batman.. It's already ridiculous).

If it helps, I've not seen Oppenheimer - you could be right.

But I conclude that given his hit rate (prior to Oppy) is 100%, I simply must dismiss this as trollish games :D

I suppose this presents a pretty interesting conundrum - the human ingenuity that came up with an automobile, is also the one, at the same moment which created the psychological problem of desiring it's use. Now that we're able to fairly simply, easily, and cheaply travel from NYC to LA in 3 days instead of three months - losing that seems a bargain we can't justify - even by saving the planet lmao

NB: I am aware we can do it in 6-ish hours. Restricting comment to the use of cars.

intelligence enables a greater understanding of one's pain, which might in turn mitigate its emotional effects — mcdoodle

I think this requires an addition of a strong will. Intelligence doesn't equate to a strong will, or control of ones faculties. As @Tom Storm notes, the opposite is as likely, i think. It seems, more often than not, that particularly intelligent people with low skill tend to be extremely depressed.

I missed this - but you should also check out Cunk on Christmas.

One of the funniest Christmas-related watches i've had in years.

That said, I am extremely disappointed by your clearly factually incorrect opinion on Nolan. That may be why I neglected to give you this Alpha Recommendation :shade:

Fair enough; I think it's clear they're 1. Less capable; 2. Less energetic and 3. Less aggrieved. The BLM protests are the 'canary' for that.

But, that said, I have just heard some lines from a podcast about the Conservative/Republican movement in the USA which are.. to my mind.. utterly bizarre and clearly an interpolation from someone who is extremely biased.

Yet, i know that isn't hte case, in this particular case. So i assume i am underinformed :)

Personally, they're as bad as each other, for different reasons.

But, its totally understandable that someone is comfortable in your position. The GOP, and Trumpers more specifically (i.e the Trumpers in their capacities in teh GOP before Trump) have been the same type of dangerous for several decades at the least.

The newer 'woke' problems have been inching on us for only about 15 years, in my estimation. Easy to miss. However, I was chest-deep in it for a time(And i do mean.. DEEP.. I thought I was morally obliged to literally hand a job offer to a female if i got one, as an example of how deranged i was) and must conclude from my experiences they have an equal potential for social destruction unfortunately :(

Your belief otherwise is just falling for liberal media propaganda. — Mikie

Ah, I see. LOL.

Tbf, liberal media is absolutely awful. But that has no bearing here - just wanted to give at least one opinion here haha.